SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM

Sung Hong Park B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2005

THESIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

FALL 2010

 2010 Sung Hong Park ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM A Thesis

by

Sung Hong Park

Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Dongmei Zhou __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Akihiko Kumagai

____________________________ Date

iii

Student: Sung Hong Park

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator Dr. Kenneth S. Sprott Department of Mechanical Engineering

___________________ Date

iv

Abstract of SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM by Sung Hong Park

As efficiency of the equipment improves, there is a need for more sophisticated control over all equipment to achieve a global optimization. The idea of a simulation-powered building energy management and control system (SPEMS) to achieve such optimization has interested the building retrofit community since the 1980s, but there is still no such system available to consumers today. In this paper, a 200,000 square foot high-rise office building in San Jose, California, is used to demonstrate the SPEMS. For this demonstration, DOE-2.2 building energy simulation was used, and the building model was calibrated to the actual electricity meter interval data for the year 2007. The building simulation showed 2.25% energy reduction and the estimated payback time was 11.4 years. This result is significantly different than the 20% energy reduction result by Cumali et al. in 1988. The reduction of savings from SPEMS is due to system optimization done v

through smarter EMCS and higher building efficiency standard set by California Title 24 Building Code.

_______________________, Committee Chair Dr. Dongmei Zhou

_______________________ Date

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures.................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Let There Be Green Industry ........................................................................ 1 1.2 Building Energy Efficiency vs. Renewable Energy Sources .............................. 3 1.3 Further Improvement on Building Energy Efficiency ........................................ 5 2. DOE BUILDING SIMULATION ................................................................................... 7 2.1 DOE-2.2 ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Building Model................................................................................................. 9 3. SPEMS SIMULATION ................................................................................................. 16 3.1 Simulation Tactics ........................................................................................... 16 3.2 Indoor Temperature Set Point Schedule ........................................................... 17 3.2.1 Lunchtime Pre-Cool ......................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Temperature Set-Back ...................................................................... 20 3.2.3 The Productive Work Space Temperature and Body Temperature ..... 20 3.3 Running the Simulation at Optimal Indoor Temperature Set Points .................. 22 4. COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY ................................................................................ 26 4.1 Implementation Cost ........................................................................................ 26 4.2 Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 26 5. CONCLUSION AND THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL ................................ 28 5.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 28 vii

5.2 Comparison with Other Studies........................................................................ 28 5.3 Sources of Error............................................................................................... 28 5.4 Future Work of Building Control ..................................................................... 29 References ......................................................................................................................... 30

viii

LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Table 1: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Budget .. 2 2. Table 2: Energy Consumption Comparison ... 25 3. Table 3: Estimated Cost of the Project ... 26 4. Table 4: Economical Summary .. 27

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Figure 1: EMCS Evolution..... 6 Figure 2: DOE-2.2 Simulation Flow....... 8 Figure 3: Aerial View of Legacy Civic Towers Building... 9 Figure 4: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile.... 11 Figure 5: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use ... 12 Figure 6: Annual Energy Consumption..... 13 Figure 7: Simulated Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.. 14 Figure 8: CEUS Large Office Building Energy Consumption by End-Use.. 15 Figure 9: Weather Independent Internal Load Profile... 17 Figure 10: Cooling Tower Cooling ... 19 Figure 11: 2007 San Jose Outside Wet Bulb Temperature.... 20 Figure 12: Average Human Body Temperature Profile. 21 Figure 13: Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedules.. 22 Figure 14: Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule.. 23 Figure 15: Temperature Set Point Schedule... 24

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Let There be Green Industry The green industry has existed for more than 30 years, since the first oil crisis hit the United States. The Department of Energy (DOE) was formed after the first oil crisis in 1977 to research renewable energy and to improve energy efficiency. The main focus of DOE is to develop alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels, hence majority of its budget is allocated in scientific research such as fusion and nuclear physics. While DOE focused on the research, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), an agency under DOE, created the green industry to bring energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources to consumers. EERE runs numerous energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and historically, put slightly more weight on energy efficiency programs then renewable energy programs, until recently, as shown in Table 1.

Programs Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D Building Technologies Federal Energy Management Program Geothermal Technology Hydrogen Technology Hydropower Industrial Technologies Solar Energy Vehicle Technologies Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities 316,866 385,000 Wind Energy 38,333 122,500 TOTAL 1,024,845 1,960,658 Table 1: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Budget [1]

2006 Budget $ (thousands) 89,776 68,190 18,974 22,762 153,451 495 55,856 81,791 178,351

2011 Budget $ (thousands) 220,000 230,698 42,272 55,000 137,000 40,488 100,000 302,398 325,302

In 2006, EERE spent approximately 37% on renewable energy research programs and 43% on building energy efficiency programs, with more emphasis on the building energy efficiency programs. The building energy efficiency programs include: building technologies, industrial technologies, weatherization, and intergovernmental activities. The building technology program focuses on improving the overall energy efficiency of new and existing buildings through research, partnerships, and developing tools for various industries. In past years, EERE focused to improve heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, lighting technology, building design, and other building technologies. The industrial technology program encourages industries in the U.S. to reduce their energy consumption by running incentive programs to implement energy efficient equipment and practices. The weatherization and intergovernmental

programs are incentive programs designed to encourage implementing energy efficiency equipment and practices. With the growing concerns about global warming, the general public is now more conscious about where the energy they use is coming from and how to conserve to reduce their carbon footprint. As a result, renewable energy gains more support and has fueled the solar, hydrogen, and wind energy industries. Public demand for renewable energy was reflected in the 2011 EERE budget allocation: 37% for energy efficiency and 45% for renewable energy. Emphasis has now shifted toward renewable energy. 1.2 Building Energy Efficiency vs. Renewable Energy Sources Improving building energy efficiency and researching renewable energy are both effective ways to reduce carbon footprints, but improving building energy efficiency is money better spent to reduce our carbon footprint. Lets compare two different ways to reduce building electric bill. The first way is to install photovoltaic panels and generate 20% of building electric bill at the facility. The other method is to install more efficient light bulbs to reduce electric demand permanently. Photovoltaic panels are the iconic green energy of today and it is a good example to address the problems in renewable energy. For an example, if a facility operation manager installs photovoltaic (PV) panels to supply 25% of a 14-story office building in San Jose, it takes 29 years to break even without tax incentives and additional 6.7 years to break even pollutant created during PV panel production. The available solar radiance in San Jose is 5.48 kWh/m2/day and that would require 36,339 square feet of photovoltaic

panels at an average efficiency of 20%. The estimated project cost would be $2.5 million, without government incentives [2]. Based on PG&Es Billing Schedule E19S summer peak electricity price of 0.15217 dollar per kWh, it would take 29 years without tax incentives, ($7,295.41 per month of savings equals 349 months) to break even. If one considers that the expected lifetime of photovoltaic system is 25 to 30 years, the building would hardly break even on this investment. Another consideration: in the process of manufacturing photovoltaic panels, energy has been inputted, this is called embodied energy. The payback time for manufacturing photovoltaic panels is 6.7 years [3].

Including the payback period for embodied energy, photovoltaic panels end up producing more of a carbon footprint than if they were not used. Building energy efficiency, on the other hand, has better monetary return rate. For an example, upgrading lighting equipment is a common retrofit project among many businesses. Title 24 requires 1.0 W/square foot for use in office spaces. If a T8 32W bulb is used, which is the industry standard for office lighting for 200,000 square feet of office space, it would require 6,250 32W 4-foot T8 bulbs ($2.49) to keep the entire space at 90 lumens, and a color-rendering index (CRI) of 85. If T5 fixtures were installed instead, it would need 6,250 28W 4-foot T5 bulbs ($9.75), effectively reducing 120,000 kWh per year at a cost of $61,000. It would only take 3 years to break even. The payback for the embodied energy of fluorescent light bulbs is only approximately 50 hours.

1.3 Further Improvement on Building Energy Efficiency Building energy efficiency improvement is a much better monetary and environmental return today. For many years, different industries focused on improving individual component efficiency. In the last decade, with cheaper and higher processing power available, the building energy management control system (EMCS) was developed to optimize the whole system efficiency. The first generation of EMCS was focused on optimizing performance of the individual HVAC component. Now, EMCS involves the broader picture of the HVAC system and optimizes the system based on readings from individual components. The modern EMCS can now run an HVAC system based on occupancy and equipment schedules, and optimize the system based on those factors. SPEMS is the next generation of EMCS, and the idea for this system has interested the industry for over 20 years, to further savings from buildings. For the last 20 years, as shown in Figure 1, EMCS have evolved from traditional component control to equipment optimization and HVAC system optimization [4]. The next improvement for EMCS is global optimization using computer simulations.

EMCS Evolution

Savings

Traditional Application

Equipment Optimization

System Optimization

Global Optimization

Sophistication

Figure 1: EMCS Evolution

In 1988, Cumali et al. implemented simulation-powered building management and control systems to actual buildings, and the result showed a 20% energy reduction from three large office buildings [5]. The result demonstrated attractive savings, but still, no EMCS with building simulation capability is available on the market today. In the past 20 years, significant progress has been made in building energy efficiency and it is questionable that the same rate of savings could be achieved from a modern building. Building codes have become more rigorous: the building must be more insulated, EMCS and sensors together achieve HVAC system optimization, system component efficiency has been improved, and internal building load has been reduced from efficient plug loads. Using DOE 2.2 building energy simulation of calibrated

building in San Jose, electrical energy savings from the simulation-powered energy management and control system (SPEMS) were explored and compared with electrical energy savings from study done by Cumali et al.

Chapter 2 DOE BUILDING SIMULATION 2.1 DOE-2.2 For more than 30 years, building designers and research communities have used building energy simulation to create energy efficient buildings, assess energy savings from implementing energy efficient measures, and estimate the size of HVAC equipment. The DOE building simulation software is the most well-known software in the industry for its accuracy and usefulness in designing and retrofitting buildings. The DOE building simulation software was developed by James J. Hirsch in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. From numerous revisions, the current software version is DOE-2.2. DOE-2.2 software is composed of four subprograms as shown in Figure 2. The BDL Processor subprogram takes user input files and accesses a library to generate the BDL file. The simulation process uses the BDL file and the local weather data to run the LOADS subprogram to simulate the building heat load, then the SYSTEMS subprogram simulates the HVAC system load, and finally, the ECONOMICS subprogram calculates the hourly energy consumption and its cost [6].

Figure 2: DOE-2.2 Simulation Flow Chart

The user input file is composed of the year of building simulation run, construction materials, various equipment schedules, building design, HVAC system, and building zoning pattern. It has intuitive names of variables more easily readable by a human. The main purpose of the BDL Processor subprogram is to translate a humanreadable user input file to a machine-readable BDL file and access a library of material properties and various equipment performance curves. The user can simply define the construction material, such as Polyurethane insulation, in the user input file, and the BDL Processor inserts the thermal properties of Polyurethane from the library to the BDL file. It works the same way for equipment components; the user can simply define a chiller type in the user input file and the BDL Processor accesses the proper compressor performance curve and includes it in the BDL file. As previously mentioned, the DOE-2.2 simulates the building using three subprograms: LOADS, SYSTEMS, and ECONOMICS. The LOADS subprogram uses a

BDL file and weather data to calculate the hourly heating and cooling load for a userdefined building model based on the weather data provided. The SYSTEMS subprogram calculates the HVAC system performance to meet the user-defined heating and cooling set point. The ECONOMICS subprogram then calculates the energy consumption and its cost based on the LOADS and SYSTEMS results. When the building simulation process is complete, DOE-2.2 generates an Output Report. 2.2 Building Model To demonstrate the savings from SPEMS, a DOE-2.2 building model of a real building in San Jose was created. The building is Legacy Civic Towers in San Jose, as shown in Figure 3. It is a 14-story building with a basement, totaling 200,674 square feet.

Figure 3: Aerial View of Legacy Civic Towers Building [7]

10

The building is open from 6 a.m.to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. For the last two years, the average building occupancy rate was at 60% of its maximum capacity. The buildings HVAC system runs at a standard variable air volume with a hot water reheat system. One 500-Ton York chiller and one 250-Ton Trane chiller supply cools the chilled water loop, while two gas furnaces heat the hot water loop. This building was chosen because it is a good representation of a typical high-rise office building in the San Jose area. The facility was built in 1997, during the dot-com economic boom era and has participated in multiple PG&E commercial retrofit programs to keep the building efficiency up to date. Based on the whole facility survey done by ADM Associates, Inc., in 2009, the DOE-2.2 building model was created. information on building construction, The whole facility survey includes detailed HVAC equipment, plug-in equipment,

miscellaneous equipment, facility operating schedules, and EMCS operating setup. In order to reflect the actual building using a computer model, the model must be calibrated based on the actual building energy consumption. By running the DOE-2.2 simulation of the building model using the year 2007 weather data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and comparing it against the 2007 15-min kW interval data from PG&E, the model was calibrated to match within 10% of the actual billing data. The calibration involved adjusting occupancy rate, plug-in equipment load, and miscellaneous loads.

11

450.00 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00

Annual Average Hourly Load Profile

Billing Data Simulation

kW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour

Figure 4: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile

The Figure 4 shows the difference between annual average hourly electric demand profile from the electric interval data and the simulation result. The hourly profile calibration calibrates building power demand for every hour. The simulation hourly profile has an average of a 106% match to the actual building hourly profile. The building electric demand is allocated to represent the actual building electric demand as shown in Figure 5, below.

12

Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Space Cool Heat Rejection Ventilation Pumps Exterior Use

kW

Figure 5: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use

The building electric demand is broken up into seven different end-use categories: space cool, heat rejection, ventilation, pumps, exterior use, plug loads, and lighting. The space cool is the energy demand from chillers; heat rejection is the energy used by cooling tower; ventilation is the energy demand from air handling units and exhaust fans; pumps are the energy consumed by various hydro pumps associated the HVAC system and domestic hot water; exterior use is the buildings exterior lighting; plug loads are miscellaneous equipment connected to building via electrical outlet; and lighting is the demand from lighting fixtures. This building houses a server room that is running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, therefore at night, the building still demands approximately 160 kW. The majority of that demand is from the mainframe computers and cooling associated with them. The

13

plot also shows slowly increasing demand at 6 a.m.as employees come to work and slowly decreases at 5 p.m.as employees leave. Once the hourly electric demand is calibrated, the next step is to calibrate electric energy consumption. The hourly profile gives a daily demand of the electricity, whereas the annual electric energy consumption gives the monthly profile of electricity consumption. Figure 6 presents the comparison of annual electric energy consumption between 2007 Bills and simulation results. On average, the simulation electric energy consumption agrees to the actual electric bills by 101%.

Annual Energy Consumption

250,000 2007 Bills Simulation Result 200,000

150,000 kWh 100,000 50,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 6: Annual Energy Consumption

14

Energy Consumption by End-Use

Lights 25%
Space Cool 10% Heat Rejection 0% Ventilation 12% Pumps 14%

Plug Loads 37% Exterior Use 2%

Figure 7: Simulated Building Energy Consumption by End-Use

The buildings annual electric energy consumption by end-use is shown in Figure 7 above. For this particular building, the plug load is the largest part of the annual electric consumption, at 37%. HVAC equipment, a combination of space cool, heat rejection, ventilation, and pumps, is the second largest, at 36%. The lighting fixtures take up 25% and the exterior lights make up the last 2%. This ratio is comparable to Itrons California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) result of large office buildings in California shown in Figure 8.

15

CEUS End-Use Consumption

Lighting 25% HVAC 42%

Plug Loads 30%

Exterior Use 3%

Figure 8: CEUS Large Office Building Energy Consumption by End-Use [8]

The difference in plug loads by comparing results in Figure 7 and Figure 8 comes from the mainframe computer hosted at the Legacy Partners building. The mainframe server computers run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and therefore take up large portions of the total consumption. The general office building in CEUS does not include facilities with mainframe servers; rather it categorizes separately as high-tech facility.

16

Chapter 3 SPEMS SIMULATION 3.1 Simulation Tactics The simulation of the simulation-powered energy management and control system (SPEMS) is a challenge because there is no function available in DOE-2.2 to simulate such EMCS. SPEMS is designed to create numerous temperature schedules and run DOE-2.2 simulation, and uses the temperature schedule that saves the most electricity. In order to demonstrate the savings from the SPEMS, a simplified approach was taken to mimic how SPEMS would control indoor temperature. 20 indoor temperature set point schedules were created based on three factors: Outside weather condition, internal loads, and the productive workspace temperature. Multiple DOE-2.2 runs were made and the schedule with the highest savings for every month was chosen to run. The reason for using the indoor temperature set point is that, in the DOE-2.2 simulation, indoor temperature set point controls the supply of cool air and directly controls the HVAC system run-time. The indoor temperature depends on human

occupancy, plug loads, lighting loads, sunlight, and the latent heat from walls and windows. The indoor cooling load varies by time of day. Sunlight and latent heat from the walls and windows depend on the weather and it affects the performance of chillers. DOE-2.2 runs system optimization at a given condition, and one can lower the temperature set point to draw more cooling load inside and indirectly control the chillers at any given time. Conversely, one can increase the indoor temperature to rest the chillers.

17

3.2 Indoor Temperature Set Point Schedule The indoor temperature set point schedules were created based on three energy savings strategies. The first, is to pre-cool running chillers during lunchtime (Noon to 1 a.m.) to reduce chiller runtime during the peak time. The second is to start temperature set back as occupancy rates drop in the building. The last strategy is to slowly lower the temperature set point in the morning until body temperatures reach the optimal level of 98.6F. 3.2.1 Lunchtime Pre-Cool The lunchtime pre-cool is a strategy to run chillers during lunchtime when there is less internal load and when the cooling tower efficiency is higher. During that time, the building occupancy drops as employees leave to have lunch. The following plot in Figure 9 shows the change in occupancy rate and plug load demand.

100% 80% % ON 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Occupancy Lighting

Equipment

Figure 9: Weather Independent Internal Load Profile

18

The lighting equipment tends to be powered on during the business hour in an open office configuration because it is ineffective to install occupancy sensors on every lighting fixture in an open office space. Therefore, EMCS controls the light in that type of office. As occupancy rates fall, equipment demand falls due to office equipment going into idle mode. For example, personal computers consume less energy when it lowers the CPU clock speed to use less CPU and power down monitors when no one is using them. Copy machines goes to a sleep mode when they are not used for more than an hour. An automatic system like this can bring the plug load down during lunch. Outside wet bulb temperature is closely related to cooling tower efficiency and it is better to run the tower when the wet bulb temperature is lower. As outside wet bulb temperature increases, the cooling capacity on a cooling tower falls, as it becomes difficult to remove the heat using the evaporation of water. Figure 10 shows how the outside wet bulb temperature affects the cooling capacity of the cooling tower. As the wet bulb temperature increases, cooling capacity drops.

19

Cooling Tower Cooling Capacity

800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 66 Cooling Capacity in GPM 757

704
631 558

68

70

72

Outside Wet Bulb Temperature

Figure 10: Cooling Tower Cooling Capacity [9]

Based on the 2007 NOAA San Jose weather record, an average wet bulb temperature plot was created as shown in Figure 11. Three average hourly wet bulb profiles are displayed: January, July, and the annual average. The outdoor wet bulb temperature peaks at 1 p.m., so by reducing the cooling tower run-time during this hour, the building can potentially save energy. The January profile is an example of a winter wet bulb temperature profile, and the July profile is an example of a summer wet bulb temperature profile.

20

70 60

Outside Wet Bulb Temperature

July F 50 40 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Average January

Figure 11: 2007 San Jose Outside Wet Bulb Temperature

3.2.2 Temperature Set-Back Starting at 5 p.m., employees begin to leave work, and the temperature set back strategy should begin to reduce chiller run-time. As shown in Figure 9, occupancy, lighting, and equipment loads fall after 5 p.m. For example, when the SPEMS predicts lower demand ahead, it forces the chillers to run at their highest efficiency even if it is a lower cooling supply. If at 4:30 p.m. the internal set point temperature is at 74F and the chiller needs to run at 90% load to meet that cooling load, SPEMS can decide to run the chiller at 85% load because the chiller efficiency is higher at that load, but it produces enough cooled air to keep the internal temperature at 75F. 3.2.3 The Productive Work Space Temperature and Body Temperature The indoor temperature set point and body temperature together are an important factor for keeping employees productive and comfortable. In many studies of

21

productivity at work, researchers found an inverted U-shape relationship centered between 72F (22C) and 77F (25C) [10]. As the indoor temperature deviates from that range, productivity falls by 2% per every degree Celsius. Hence, the temperature between 72F to 77F is the range of temperature and SPEMS can fluctuate without sacrificing productivity. Thermal comfort is another factor related to work productivity. The comfortable temperature is relative to the temperature difference between body and ambient. Body temperature varies throughout the day; it is lowest at 4 a.m. and highest between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. as shown in Figure 12.

100.0 99.8 99.6 99.4 99.2 99.0 98.8 98.6 98.4 98.2 98.0 97.8 97.6 97.4 97.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour

Body Temperature (F)

Figure 12: Average Human Body Temperature Profile [11]

Optimal body temperature is 98.6F. The body feels different depending on if body temperature is below or above optimal temperature. In the morning, the body

22

temperature is below the optimal temperature, therefore, the person prefers a warmer ambient temperature until their body temperature reaches the optimal level. Warmer ambient temperature minimizes body heat loss so it helps body to reach the optimal level. In the afternoon, the body temperature is well above optimal levels, so the cooler ambient temperature feels better as it helps the body to regulate its temperature. 3.3 Running the Simulation at Optimal Indoor Temperature Set Points Based on the three energy saving strategies described in the previous section, 20 temperature schedules were created and compared against the baseline. Based on

independent DOE-2.2 runs of different temperature schedules, SPEMS chooses the optimal temperature schedule to run the building.

700 600

Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedule

500
kW 400 300 200 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour

Figure 13: Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedules

Figure 13 shows hourly demand for a 2007 peak day average. The peak day was defined by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the hottest three consecutive

23

weekdays in 2007, which are July 17 to July 19.

As shown above, 20 different

temperature schedules create different demand profiles. Even with the same temperature schedule, depending on the weather, demand can be different. Figure 14 compares the peak day average profile to the baseline schedule, the 75F constant temperature set point schedule, and the July optimal schedule.

700
600 500 kW 400 300 200 100 1 2 3 4

Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule

Baseline 75F Optimum

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour

Figure 14: Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule

In the morning, the optimal schedule demands less energy because lower temperature set points provide comfortable temperatures until body temperature reaches its optimal 98.6F. The cooling load continues to increase throughout the morning to cool the building until noon. From noon to 2 p.m., the energy demand stays constant as the pre-cool pays off by slowly increasing the temperature set point. At 4 p.m., SPEMS anticipates the lower cooling demand after 5 p.m. and starts the set back process.

24

The average indoor temperature set point for the July optimal schedule during business hours is 74.8F but the average indoor temperature between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. is 72.5F. The plot in Figure 15 shows the difference between the baseline and optimal temperature set point schedules.
90 85

Temp (F)

80 75 70 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Temperature Setpoint Optimum Schedule

Figure 15: Temperature Set Point Schedule

The result of running SPEMS on the building mode is presented in Table 2. The annual energy savings from the SPEMS is 52,254.36 kWh, which is a 2.25% energy reduction. The building is in PG&E rate schedule E19S, which charges $0.15217 per kWh during the summer. The monetary annual savings is $7,951.55.

25

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Seo Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

Baseline (kWh) 178,360.69 161,804.56 190,674.90 185,931.65 204,114.26 205,737.04 220,771.72 227,791.59 198,779.49 196,154.30 177,464.92 175,102.85 2,322,687.96

SPEMS (kWh) 175,152.61 159,092.47 186,478.07 180,807.08 197,789.72 200,071.64 215,409.32 221,881.21 195,799.50 191,964.31 172,974.90 173,012.75 2,270,433.59

Savings (kWh) 3,208.08 2,712.08 4,196.83 5,124.57 6,324.54 5,665.40 5,362.39 5,910.38 2,979.99 4,189.99 4,490.02 2,090.09 52,254.36

% Reduction 1.80% 1.68% 2.20% 2.76% 3.10% 2.75% 2.43% 2.59% 1.50% 2.14% 2.53% 1.19% 2.25%

Table 2: Energy Consumption Comparison

26

Chapter 4 COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY 4.1 Implementation Cost The estimated cost of implementing SPEMS is $90,480.00 for a 200,000 square foot office building. The cost breakdown is listed in Since there are no EMCS with

building simulation available to the consumer today, a control engineer must integrate the building simulation to the existing EMCS. More sensors are required to be installed onsite to provide more feedback to SPEMS. In order to create a building model, a full building audit is needed. On top of the cost of implementing the SPEMS, there is also cost involved to commission the project, creating a report and a user manual, and training employees. Components Material ($) Hours Rate ($/hour) 120 60 120 120 120 80 120 T&M Cost ($) 14,600.00 29,400.00 10,600.00 19,200.00 9,600.00 4,200.00 2,880.00 90,480.00

Integration with BAS/EMS 5,000.00 80 Sensor Installation 15,000.00 240 Building Audit 1,000.00 80 Computer Modeling 160 Commissioning 80 Report/manual 1,000.00 40 Training 24 Total Cost ($) Table 3: Estimated Cost of the Project

4.2 Cost Effectiveness Table 4 provides the economical summary and indicates that SPEMS implementation requires 11.4 years to break even, based on annual energy savings. The Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) estimates the expected useful life of

27

typical HVAC equipment at 15 years and the SPEMS can break even before its predicted lifetime. Cost Energy Savings Annual Cost Savings Simple Payback Time $90,480 52 MWh $7,952 11.4 year Table 4: Economical Summary

28

Chapter 5 CONCLUSION AND THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL 5.1 Conclusion The payback period for SPEMS is 11.4 years which makes it difficult to sell to customers because a payback period over 10 years is considered to be too long. Because of the sophistication of the SPEMS implementation, cost is high as shown in Chapter 4. In order to market proliferate SPEMS, the payback period needs to be less than 3 years, and otherwise facility managers find it difficult to justify the project cost. 5.2 Comparison with Other Studies Unfortunately, SPEMS showed only a 2.25% energy reduction from the Legacy Civic Towers building. In 1988, Cumali et al. implemented simulation-powered EMCS on three large office buildings and they were able to achieve a 20% energy reduction. The major source of this discrepancy between these two numbers is from the building code of higher efficiency standard enforced by local governments. A modern building, like Legacy Civic Towers, has better insulation, better glazing, more efficient office equipment, and more efficient HVAC components. Along with these technological

improvements, EMCS can optimize the system, so savings from global optimization have diminished compared to Cumalis experiment in 1988. 5.3 Sources of Error In this analysis, the SPEMS were simplified and it may not demonstrate its full capability. The proper way to simulate the SPEMS, temperature schedule and energy consumption should be a multi-variable function, and SPEMS should run numerous

29

DOE-2.2 simulationsiteratively to find the optimal temperature schedule. SPEMS should create a new optimized schedule on a daily basis.In this paper, for simplicity, monthly optimized schedules were created. 5.4 Future Work of Building Control It was difficult to create a DOE-2.2 simulation of SPEMS as envisioned by author of this paper. The SPEMS of the future should be able to communicate with local weather stations and the utility companys server. Employees in the building would have a radio frequency identification (RFID) card so the SPEMS can monitor building occupancy level. Based on the building occupancy, SPEMS could shut down lights and plug loads in vacant rooms, also estimating the cooling load required for the next hour. SPEMS also would monitor indoor CO2 levels to control the percent of outside air intake and air recirculation to minimize the quantity of air to be conditioned. The local weather data could be automatically downloaded by SPEMS and used on its DOE-2.2 simulation runs. The building could have photovoltaic panels, and based on an hourly electric rate, SPEMS can decide whether to store, sell, or use the electricity being generated. If all these capabilities were simulated, the savings could be large enough to be worth implementing SPEMS on all buildings.

30 REFERENCES 1. Office of Chief Financial Officer. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congrational Budget Request. Washington DC: Depart of Energy, 2010, 25. 2. Cooler Planet. Cooler Planet. http://solar.coolerplanet.com/Articles/solar-calculator.aspx (accessed June 23, 2010). 3. Corkish, Richard. "Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture?" Solar Progress (Photovoltaics Special Research Center), 1997: 16-17. 4. Thielman, Davis. "System Optimization - The Global Approach to HVAC Control." First Symposium. 1984. 5. Cumali, Z. "Global Optimization of HVAC System Operations in Real Time." ASHRAE Transaction 94(1), 1988: 729-1744. 6. Simulation Research Group. DOE-2 Home. http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirsoft/d2whatis.html (accessed June 23, 2010). 7. Microsoft. Bing Maps. http://www.bing.com/maps/ (accessed July 30, 2010). 8. Itron, Inc. California Commerical End-Use Survey. Consultant Report, Itron, Inc, 2006, 158. 9. Evapco. "LSTB/LPT Forced Draft Cooling Towers." Evapco, 22. 10. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Animal Heat. Vol. 2, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, 49. 1911. 11. Seppanen, Olli, William J. Fisk, and David Faulkner. Control of Temperature for Health and Productivity in Offices. Institute of Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning,

31 Helsinki Univsersity of Technology, Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2004, 2.